Closed
Bug 1447979
Opened 7 years ago
Closed 6 years ago
1.11 - 8.52% tp5o_webext responsiveness (linux64, windows10-64, windows7-32) regression on push e2ddf4dbfa33 (Wed Mar 21 2018)
Categories
(Core :: DOM: Core & HTML, defect)
Core
DOM: Core & HTML
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
WORKSFORME
Tracking | Status | |
---|---|---|
firefox-esr52 | --- | unaffected |
firefox59 | --- | unaffected |
firefox60 | --- | unaffected |
firefox61 | + | fixed |
People
(Reporter: igoldan, Unassigned)
References
Details
(Keywords: perf, regression, talos-regression)
Talos has detected a Firefox performance regression from push: https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/pushloghtml?fromchange=243246b2f4406f0b2f118758220db5c7fdd215df&tochange=e2ddf4dbfa33d0da768cd8a46f2627e6c2aadbc6 As author of one of the patches included in that push, we need your help to address this regression. Regressions: 9% tp5o_webext responsiveness windows7-32 opt e10s stylo 2.91 -> 3.16 3% tp5o_webext responsiveness linux64 opt e10s stylo 1.63 -> 1.68 3% tp5o_webext responsiveness windows10-64 opt e10s stylo 2.89 -> 2.97 3% tp5o_webext responsiveness linux64 pgo e10s stylo 1.44 -> 1.48 1% tp5o_webext responsiveness windows10-64 pgo e10s stylo 2.56 -> 2.59 Improvements: 6% tabpaint windows10-64 opt e10s stylo 73.04 -> 68.47 You can find links to graphs and comparison views for each of the above tests at: https://treeherder.mozilla.org/perf.html#/alerts?id=12305 On the page above you can see an alert for each affected platform as well as a link to a graph showing the history of scores for this test. There is also a link to a treeherder page showing the Talos jobs in a pushlog format. To learn more about the regressing test(s), please see: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Buildbot/Talos/Tests For information on reproducing and debugging the regression, either on try or locally, see: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Buildbot/Talos/Running *** Please let us know your plans within 3 business days, or the offending patch(es) will be backed out! *** Our wiki page outlines the common responses and expectations: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Buildbot/Talos/RegressionBugsHandling
Reporter | ||
Updated•7 years ago
|
Component: Untriaged → JavaScript Engine: JIT
Product: Firefox → Core
Reporter | ||
Comment 1•7 years ago
|
||
:jandem It seems like bug 1447578 caused these responsiveness perf regressions on multiple desktop OSes. Is this something we can fix or should we accept/backout? Note: I am not entirely sure about this finding and I'm still waiting for the tests to finish. In about an hour I should be able to properly confirm.
Flags: needinfo?(jdemooij)
Updated•7 years ago
|
status-firefox59:
--- → unaffected
status-firefox60:
--- → unaffected
status-firefox61:
--- → affected
status-firefox-esr52:
--- → unaffected
tracking-firefox61:
--- → +
Comment 2•7 years ago
|
||
Bug 1447578 should not affect performance like this so it's pretty mysterious. We could bisect the patches maybe...
Reporter | ||
Comment 3•7 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Jan de Mooij [:jandem] from comment #2) > Bug 1447578 should not affect performance like this so it's pretty > mysterious. We could bisect the patches maybe... I triggered a Try bisect. Will inform you once the results arrive.
Reporter | ||
Comment 4•7 years ago
|
||
Some of the results started to show up. Turns out the regressions are happening on Linux only. Those from Windows are invalid and must be ignored. Also, it's possible that the previous bug 888600 is more related to this. :peterv Am I right to assume this? From the looks of it [1], the perf regressions happens in 2 consecutive steps. That is bug 888600, followed by bug 1447979. [1] https://treeherder.mozilla.org/perf.html#/graphs?series=mozilla-inbound,1640992,1,1&series=autoland,1646628,0,1&zoom=1521641812653.5955,1521660643113.4587,1.2563524184777657,1.899217168427632&selected=mozilla-inbound,1640992,318657,435837268,1
Flags: needinfo?(peterv)
Comment 5•7 years ago
|
||
Andrew, is there anyone on your team who has cycles to take a look at this?
Flags: needinfo?(overholt)
Comment 6•7 years ago
|
||
Do you still think bug 1447578 is related, or is this from bug 888600? Canceling NI because comment 4 seems to suggest that's true and I don't see how bug 1447578 is related.
Flags: needinfo?(jdemooij)
Comment 7•7 years ago
|
||
Well, it seems I can't run this locally, it always fails with timeouts. I'll try to get some profiles from try.
Updated•7 years ago
|
Flags: needinfo?(overholt)
Comment 10•6 years ago
|
||
Moving to DOM because it sounds like this is from bug 888600.
Component: JavaScript Engine: JIT → DOM
Comment 11•6 years ago
|
||
Peter: since this looks like this is from bug 888600. Were you able to get some profiles from try as stated in Comment 7?
Flags: needinfo?(sdetar)
Comment 12•6 years ago
|
||
Ionut, can you provide some more context as to what's regressing here? (Forgive my ignorance)
Flags: needinfo?(igoldan)
Reporter | ||
Comment 13•6 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Mike Taylor [:miketaylr] from comment #12) > Ionut, can you provide some more context as to what's regressing here? > (Forgive my ignorance) I tried to provide some gecko profiles, but without luck: the jobs fail [1]. I think :kmag can provide more details as to what this test is measuring and maybe give clues on what regressed here. I looked again over the graph. It seems that after March 23, the regression was canceled by bug 1444119, which :peterv pushed. I vote for closing this as WORKSFORME, given the time that passed. :peterv if you confirm that bug 1444119 fixed something from bug 1447578, I would actually close this as FIXED. [1] https://treeherder.mozilla.org/#/jobs?repo=mozilla-inbound&revision=243246b2f4406f0b2f118758220db5c7fdd215df&selectedJob=178283862&group_state=expanded&filter-searchStr=Linux%20x64%20opt%20Talos%20performance%20tests%20with%20e10s%20test-linux64%2Fopt-talos-g5-e10s%20T-e10s(g5-p)
Flags: needinfo?(igoldan)
Comment 16•6 years ago
|
||
(In reply to IonuΘ Goldan [:igoldan], Performance Sheriffing from comment #13) > (In reply to Mike Taylor [:miketaylr] from comment #12) > > Ionut, can you provide some more context as to what's regressing here? > > (Forgive my ignorance) > > I tried to provide some gecko profiles, but without luck: the jobs fail [1]. Without a profile, this is going to be very difficult to diagnose (Peter also can't reproduce locally).
Flags: needinfo?(igoldan)
Comment 17•6 years ago
|
||
this is a really old bug, geckoProfile has changed enough in the last 9 weeks that it is no surprise Ionut is not able to get profiles. Why are we just now looking into this. Is Peter trying to reproduce this on code from march 21st?
Comment 18•6 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Joel Maher ( :jmaher ) (UTC-4) from comment #17) > this is a really old bug, geckoProfile has changed enough in the last 9 > weeks that it is no surprise Ionut is not able to get profiles. Why are we > just now looking into this. I tried almost 2 months ago and couldn't get profiles either with the same errors: https://treeherder.mozilla.org/#/jobs?repo=try&revision=97327b05d2fb3fb975bb5db0914c543e8f9278b0&selectedJob=172893387
Comment 19•6 years ago
|
||
(In reply to IonuΘ Goldan [:igoldan], Performance Sheriffing from comment #13) > (In reply to Mike Taylor [:miketaylr] from comment #12) > :peterv if you confirm that bug 1444119 fixed something from bug 1447578, I > would actually close this as FIXED. Those patches are completely unrelated.
Reporter | ||
Updated•6 years ago
|
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 6 years ago
Flags: needinfo?(igoldan)
Resolution: --- → WORKSFORME
Updated•6 years ago
|
Flags: needinfo?(peterv)
Assignee | ||
Updated•6 years ago
|
Component: DOM → DOM: Core & HTML
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•